Skip to main content

Full text of "Report on state anti-discrimination agencies and the laws they administer"

See other formats


REPORT 



on 



STATE ABTI-DISCRIMBTATIOW AGENCIES 
and 

THE lAWS THEY ADMINISTER 



Prepared by the 
COMMISSION ON LAW AND SOCL\L ACTION 
OF THE AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS^ 
15 East Qkth Street 
Ne¥ York 28, N.Y, 



Prepared by 
Commission on Law and Social Action 
Shad Poller^ Chairman 
Leo Pfeffer^ Director Will Maslow, General Counsel 



American Jewish Congress 
15 East 84 Street, New York 28, N.Y, 

Israel Goldstein, President 



Justine Wise Poller, Chairman Max A. Kopstein, Chairman 

Executive Committee Administrative Committee 



Isaac ToTibin, Executive Director 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

General Summary 1 

The Administrative Enforcement Process 2 

Employment 3 

Places of Pablic Accommodation k 

Education ,.5 

Housing 5 

Prohibited Conduct 6 

The Case Load y 

The Cost to the People 8 

The Population Affected 8 

Appendices 10 

I. State Anti-Discrimination Laws Establishing 

Administrative Agencies 10 

II. State Anti-Discrimination Agencies 11 

III. Salient Features of Laws With Enforcement Provisions 12 

A. Who May Complain 12 

B. Enforcement 12 

C. Scope 13 

D. Acts Banned ±k 
Notes to Appendix III:. I7 

IV. Formal Complaints Received By Agencies With 

Enforcement Powers I9 

V. Agency Budgets 20 

VI. Proportion of Negro Other Non -white, and Jewish 

Population .'l-gl 



A REPORT ON 
STATE AflTI-DISCRIMIxMATION AGB:-IC IBS 
AKD~T HE LAWS THFf ADMINISTER 

Thirteen states of the Union ^ containing 37^ of the total population 
of the United States, have established specialized state agencies empowered 
to administer and enforce laws prohibiting one or more forms of discrimina- 
tion based on race, religion or national origin. Two other states, with h'fo 
of the population, have created anti -discrimination agencies without 
enforcement powers. This report sxammarizes the history of the establishment 
of these agencies, the scope of their powers and the nature of their 
operations. 

General Summary 

All of the thirteen states having enforceable laws prohibit discrimina- 
tion in employment. In eight of these states, the agency enforcing the law 
against discrimination in employment is further authorized to prevent 
discrimination in places of public accommodation, such as hotels, 
restaurants, theatres and recreation areas. In four states, the anti- 
discrimination agency is directed to prevent discrimination by educational 
institutions. (A fifth entrusts this prohibition to the state education 
authorities.) In seven states, the anti-discrimination agency also deals 
with discrimination in public and publicly-assisted housing. 

The thirteen state agencies having full enforcement powers have been 
given annual budgets totaling $1,366,226. This amounts to 2.21 cents for 
each person in these states. Of the total number of Negroes, other non- 
whites and Jews in the United States, 17.09/0 of the Negroes, 27.27/0 of 
the other non -whites and 73-37^ of the Jews lived in these states. The 
recent total annual case load of the agencies stands at 2003. 



Attached to this study are six appendices. Appendix I lists the laws 
of the fifteen states that are described below. Appendix II lists the 
names and addresses of the anti-discrimination agencies in each of the 
states. Appendix III contains four charts showing the salient features 
of the laws administered by the thirteen state anti-discrimination agencies 
that have effective enforcement powers. Appendix IV shows the total 
number of formal complaints received during a twelve-month period by the 
eleven agencies that have had enforcement powers for more than a year. 
Appendix V shows the amoimt and the per capita cost of the budget of each 
of the fifteen state agencies covered by this report. Appendix VI shows 
the number and proportion of Kegroes, other non-whites, and Jews in the 
popxilation of each of the states. 

The Administrative Baforcement Process 
The first two anti-discrimination agencies were established in 19^5, 
when New York and New Jersey adopted fair employment laws. The 
administrative procedure established by those laws has been followed in 
virtually all of the statutes described below. 

The laws define certain prohibited acts as "vmfair," "improper," or 
"illegal" practices. A person aggrieved by a violation of the law may 
complain to the state agency established by the the law, which then conducts 
an investigation. If the complaint appears to be well founded, the agency 
attempts to settle the matter by conciliation. If that fails, a formal 
hearing is held and the agency issues a decision either dismissing the 
complaint or directing the violator to comply with a detailed order. The 
agency's order can then be reviewed by a state court. If the court finds 

- 2 - 



that the agency's order is proper;, it decrees compliance. Thereafter, 
violation of the order may he punished as contempt of court. 

While all these agencies operate under this general administrative 
procedure, a few significant differences n;ay "be mentioned. The details 
appear in Tables A and B of Appendix III. 

A proceeding may be initiated before any of the agencies by the 
filing of a complaint by a person who believes he has encountered dis- 
crimination. In addition, in eight of the states (all but Michigan, New 
Jersey, New Mexico, Kew York and Oregon), the Commission itself may 
initiate proceedings without waiting for an aggrieved party to act. 
Finally, in eight states (all but Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Rhode Island and Washington), proceedings can be started by the state 
Attorney General or other public official. 

In most of the states, no provision is made to allow a person who has 
filed a complaint to appeal to the courts if the agency decides that his 
complaint is without merit. In four states, however (Mchigan, New 
Jersey, Rhode Island and VJashington) , such appeals are expressly allowed. 

Employment 

Table C of Appendix III shows the extent to which the thirteen 
agencies having enforcement powers deal with the areas of employment, 
education, public accommodations and housing. The history of the adoption 
of the laws in each of these areas may be described briefly. 

As already noted. New York and New Jersey adopted the first fair 
employment laws in 19^5. Additional fair employment laws were thereafter 
enacted in Massachusetts in 19k6, Connecticut in 19^7, New Mexico, Oregon, 

- 3 - 



Rhode Island and Washington in 19^9^ and Michigan, Mimesota and 
Pennsylvania in 1955. 

"Voliantary" fair emplojinent laws were adopted in 19-45 by Indiana 
and Wisconsin. These laws condemned discrimination in employment without 
making it illegal. Each also established a state agency to attempt to 
bring about compliance. The Indiana law has never been strengthened to 
provide enforcement features. The Wisconsin law, however, was amended in 
1957 to provide that orders of the agency administering the law could be 
enforced by appropriate court proceedings. Colorado adopted an extremely 
limited fair employment law in 1951 which, for the ordinary private 
employer, was in essence a "voluntary" law. It replaced that law in 1957 
with a fully operative law modelled on those of the other states. In 
1953j Kansas adopted a "voluntary" fair employment law and established a 
commission to attempt' to bring about voluntary compliance. 

Places of Public Accommodation 
In 19^9^ a new trend was started in New Jersey. At that time New 
Jersey was one of a number of states having laws prohibiting discrimj.na- 
tion in places of public accommodation. (Twenty-five states now have 
such laws, many of them having been in effect for fifty years or more.) 
The criminal and civil sanctions provided hy these laws had proved 
relatively ineffective. Recognizing this, the Ifew Jersey legislature 
decided to improve on the older proced^ore by applying the administrative 
process that had proven its merits under the 19^+5 fair employment law. 
Accordingly, it broadened the jurisdiction of its anti -discrimination 
agency to include public accommodations. The precedent thus set was 

- 4 - 



thereafter followed by Connecticut, also in 19^9, Massachusetts in 1950, 
New York and Rhode Island in 1952, and Colorado, Oregon and Washington in 
1957. 

Education 

In 19^, New York enacted a fair educationaJ. practices act, providing 
administrative procedures to prevent discrimination by colleges and 
universities. Enforcement was entrusted not to the existing anti- 
discrimination agency but to the Department of Education, where it remains 
today. In New Jersey, however, the 19^9 law just mentioned, giving the 
anti -discrimination agency power to prevent discrimination in public 
accommodations, also brought under the act discrimination by educational 
institutions. Massachusetts, which adopted a fair educational practices 
act in 19^9.- transferred enforcement powers to its general anti- 
discrimination agency in I956. Washington's 1957 law empowering its 
anti -discrimination agency to enforce the law against discrimination in 
public accommodations . included educational institutions within the 
definition of that term. Also in 1957^ Oregon gave its agency 
jurisdiction over its existing law prohibiting discrimination in trade, 
professional and vocational schools. 

Housing 

Seven anti-discrimination agencies have been given jTorisdiction to 
enforce existing or new laws against discrimination in one or more 
category of public or publicly-assisted housing. The first such grant 
occurred in 19^+9 when the Connecticut agency received responsibility for 



preventing discrimination in publicly-owned housing. Gradually, this and 
other state agencies were given jurisdiction over a nijmber of categories 
of public and publicly-assisted housing so that, today, a total of seven 
agencies have such powers. Five of these, in Connecticut, Massachusetts, 
New Jersey, New York and Ehode Island, have jurisdiction over public 
housing. The first four also have Jurisdiction over redevelopment housing 
and other housing receiving substantial assistance from the government, 
for example, in the form of tax exemption and assembling of land through 
the power of condemnation. The Oregon agency has jurisdiction specifically 
over projects on land assembled by condemnation. Most important, six 
agencies, in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and 
Washington, have jurisdiction over housing built v/ith the assistance of 
loans guaranteed by the FHA, Veterans Administration or other government 
agency. 

Prohibited Conduct 
Table D of Appendix III shows in detail the kind of discriminatory 
conduct that the various statutes prohibit. It should be noted at the 
outset that all of the laws contain provisions recognizing the right of 
religious institutions to consider the factor of religion in their 
selections, whether of employees, students or otliers. This is done in a 
number of ways. In some laws, there is a broad exemption for non-profit 
enterprises. Others, while not exempting non-profit or religious 
institutions generally, provide that they may confine their selections to, 
or prefer, members of their own faith. 

- 6 - 



As Table D shows, all thirteen states having enforceable laws 
prohibit discrimination by employers and labor unions. Similar effective 
prohibitions of discrimination in education, public accommodation and 
publicly-assisted housing are contained in each of the acts that deal with 
these subjects. 

Virtually all of the states prohibit both inquiries and advertising 
indicating an intent to engage in emplo;>i!ient discrimination. Similar 
clauses appear in many of the laws prohibiting discrimination in educa- 
tion, public accommodations and publicly-assisted housing. The laws also 
contain a number of general provisions making it illegal to discriminate 
against those who participate in statutory proceedings, to aid or abet 
discrimination and to obstruct compliance with the law. 

The Case Load 

Appendix IV shows that the eleven agencies that have had effective 
enforcement powers for at least a year have carried an aggregate annual 
case-load of 2,003 formal complaints. On a population basis, this 
represents a little over three and a half complaints per 100,000 in the 
population. The figures range from .89 for Minnesota, which delegates 
some of its work to municipal commissions in the state, to 9.86 in 
Connecticut. The variation is due, to some extent, to the varying scope 
of the agencies' responsibilities. Some, like Mnnesota, deal only with 
employment while others, like Connecticut, have broad powers over a 
number of areas. (See Appendix III, Table C. ) 



- 7 - 



The Cost to the Peop le 
The budgets and per capita costs of the agencies in each of the 
fifteen states are set forth in Appendix V. In the thirteen states 
having enforceable laws, the current budgets total ^1,366,226 and the per 
capita annual cost to the 61,767,000 people in those states is 2.21 cents. 
The per capita cost varies greatly from state to state, ranging from 
4.53 cents in Rhode Island to .25 cents in New Mexico. Like the complaint 
load figures just mentioned, this variation is partly due to differences 
in the agencies' responsibilities. Nevertheless, among agencies dealing 
only with employment, the range is from l.Qk cents in Michigan to .25 
cents in New Mexico. Among agencies having had comprehensive powers 
for at least a year, the range is from 4.53 cents in Rhode Island to 
1.81 in Massachusetts. 

The Population Affected 
Population figures for the fifteen states covered by this report 
appear in Appendix VI. The thirteen states having enforceable laws 
contain 37.39fo of the total population of the United States, 17.09^ of 
the Negroes and 27.27^ of the other non-whites. There are no census 
figures for the Jewish population. Using widely accepted estimates, how- 
ever, it appears that the Jews in these thirteen states constitute 73.37^ 
of the total number of Jews in the country. 



The successfiil operation of these laws o\-er a period of twelve years 
is a convincing refutation of earlier fears that such legislation would 



promote rather than allay intergroup differences. The laws and the work 
of the agencies they establish have resulted in substantial advances to- 
ward the democratic goal of full equality for all Americans^ without 
regard to race, religion or national origin. 

Joseph B. Robison 
Herbert L. Chabot 

December 10, 1957 



- 9 _ 



APPENDIX I 
STATE AKTI-DISCRIMIWAaTOK lAWS 
ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES - 



COLORADO 



CONNECTICUT 



INDIANA 



KANSAS 



MASSACHUSETTS 



MICHIGAN 



MINNESOTA 



NEW JERSEY 



NEW MEXICO 



NEW YORK 



OREGON 



Emp . Sees. 82-24-1 through 82-24-10, Coio. Rev. Stat. 

Pub. Ac com . Sees. 24-3-1 through 24-3-8, Colo. Rev. Stat. 

Sgp.-Ch. 371, Sees. 7400-7407, Conn. Gen. Stat. (1949), as amended 
by Sees. 3034d and 3035'i, 1955 Supp. 

Pub. Accornm . Ch. 4l7, Sees. 8374 and 8375, Conn. Gen. Stat. (l949), 
as amended by Sees. 3267d and 3268d, 1955 Supp. 

Sees. 40-2301 through 40-2306, Ann. Ind. Stat. (Burns), 1957 Supp. 

Sees. 44-1001 through 44-1008, Gen. Stat. Kan., 1955 Supp. 

Emp. -Ch. 15IB, Sees. 1-10, Ann. La\re of Mass. (Michie), 1956 Supp. 

Pub. AcGomm . Ch. 272, Sees. 92A and 98, Ann. Laws, 1956 Supp. 

Pub. Asst. Hsg . - Ch. 15IB, Ann. Laws, as amended by L.1957, Ch. 426. 

Educ. - Ch. 151c, Sees. 1-5, Ann. Laws, 1956 Supp. 

Sees. 17.458 (1-11), Mich. Stat. Ann. 

Sees. 363.01-363.13;- Minn. Stat. Arji. (West) 1957. 

Sec. 18:25-1 through 18:25-28, N.J. Stat. Ann. (West) 1956, as 
amended by L. 1957, Ch. 66. 

Sees. 59-4-1 through 59-4-14, N. Mex. Stat. Ann., 1953 
Compilation (1957). 

Emp., Pub. Accomm., and Pub. Asst. Hsg. - Executive Law, Sees. 
290-301 (McKinney) 1957. 

Educ . - Education Law, Sec. 313 (McICinney) 1957. 

Sees. 659.010-659.115, 659.990 (Emp.), 30. 670-30. 68O ( Pub. Accoma .), 

and 345.240, 345.250. (Educ.), Ore. Rev. Stat., as amended by 

L. 1957, Ch. 724 ( Pub. Accom. and Educ .) and Ch. 725 ( Pub.Aaet .Hsg . ). 



PENNSYLVANIA Title 43, Sees. 951-963, Pa. Stat. Ann. (P^jirdon) 1956. 
RHODE ISLAND L. 1952, Ch. 2958. 

WASHINGTON L. 1957, Ch. 37 (H. B. 25, approved March 2, 1957). 

WISCONSIN Sees. 111. 31 -111. 36, Wise. Stat. Ann. (West) 1957, as amended by 

Senate Bill No. 327 approved June 28, 1957. . ' 



- 10 - 



APPENDIX II 
STATE AKTI-DISCRIMIMTION AGENCIES 



Colorado 
Connecticut 
Indiana 
Kansas 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 
New Jersey 

Nex Mexico 

New York 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

Washington 

Wisconsin 



Anti -Discrimination Coimission 



Commission on Civil Rights 



Fair Employment Practices 
Commission, Division of Labor 

Anti -Discrimination Commission 



Commission Against Discrimination 



Fair Employment Practices Commission 



Fair Employment Practices Commission 

Division Against Discrimination, 
Department of Education 

Fair Em,ployment Practice Commission 



Commission Against Discrimination 



Civil Rights Division, Bureau of Labor 



Fair Employment Practice Commission, 
Department of Labor and Industry 

Commission Against Discrimination 



State Board Against Discrimination 



Fair Employment Practices Division, 
Industrial Commission 



655 Broadway Building 
Denver 3, Colo. 

500 Capitol Avenue 
Hartford 15> Conn. 

225 State Capitol 
Indianapolis k, IM. 

State Office Bldg. 
Topeka, Kansas 

hi Treraont Street 
Boston 8, Mass. 

900 Cadillac Square Ed© 
Detroit 26, Mich. 

St. Paul 1, Minn. 

1100 Raymond Blvd. 
Newark 5, N. J. 

Box 1726 

Santa Fe, N. Mexico 

270 Broadway 
New York 7, N. Y. 

State Office Bldg. 
Portland 1, Ore. 

ikOl Labor & Industry 
Bldg.,Harrisburg, Pa. 

Room 307; State House, 
Providence 2, R.I. 

3012 Arcade Building 
Seattle 1, Washington 

79h North Jefferson St. 
Milwaukee 2, Wise. 



- 11 - 



APPENDIX III 



SALIEOT FEATURES OF LAWS WITH ENFORCEMEIW PROVISIONS 



1 
1 


Colo . - 


Conn. ; 


Mass . : 


Mich. " 


Minn. 


N.J. • 


K.Mex. ; 


N.Y. 


Ore. 


Pa. 


R.I. 


: Wash. 


:Wisc. 




TABLE A. VlliO MAY COMPLAIN 






























Person assrieved * 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X(l) 


X 


X 


X 


X 


V 






CoBamission or Com- 
missioner 


X 


X 


X 




X 










X 


X 


X 


X(2): 




Attorney -General or 
other public official 


X{3) 




x(4) 






: X 


: X 


-A. 


• X 


X 






X(2). 




Private organization 






















x(5) 




X(2)i 





TABLE B. ENFORCEIvENT 




























Commission may issiie 
affirmative o"der and 
obtain court enforcement 


: X 


: X 


■ V- • 

p J\. • 


X 


• (6) 


: X 


: X 


■ X 


: X 


: X 


: X 


: X 


: X : 


Enforcement of com- ; 
mission orders by : 
other means. : 












x(7) 








x(8) 






x(9)i 


Statute provides that : 
complainant may appeal : 
from finding of no : 
probable cause : 








X 




X 










X 


X 





- 12 - 



TABLE 



SCOPE 



Employment ; 

Goveriunent agency, em- 
ployment agency, or 
lalDor organization 

Private employer (lO) 

Educational institutions 

Public acconggodations (l^) 



Housing 

Public (i.e., Government 
owned) 

Publicly assisted by 

Direct aid, such as 
tax exeiuption or 
land condemnation 

Governmental guar- 
antee of mortgage 
loans 



:Colo. : 


Conn. : 


Mass. : 


Mich. : 


Minn; : 


W. J.: 


N.Mex. : 


N. Y.: 


Ore. : 


Pa. : 


R.I. : 


Wash. : 


Wise. : 


: X : 


X : 


X : 


X : 


X : 


X : 


X : 


X : 


X : 


X : 


X : 


X : 


X : 


:' 6 




:' 6 


; 8 






if 




'. 6 




': h 


a 


1 : 






: X 






:x(ii) 




: (12) 


:x(i3) 






:x(ii) 


.m : 


: X 


X 


: X 






: X 




X 


: X 




'. X 


: X 


:(i4) : 




X 


X 






! X 




! X 






! X 








x(i6); 


X . 






! X • 




! X 


■.x(i7) 








;(i^) : 




x(i6); 


X(l8)i 






x(i9) 




:X(l8) 


ix(20) 






'x(i9) 


:(xk) : 



- 13 - 





:Colo. 


: Conn. 


iMass. : 


Mich. 


:Minn. 


:N.J. 


:W,Mex 


N.Y, 


:Ore. 


: Pa. 


:R. I. 


: Wash. 


: Wise. : 


'I'ft pi iPi 3Jt RKjXO iSrtlllivJiiJ V <-->-/ 




























Discrimination (22) in 
hiring, firing, promotion, 
or compensation of employee. 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X(23) 


X 


X 


X 


Refusal to list or refer 
for employment. 


X 


X 




X 


X 










X 


X 


X 




Compliance with em- 
ployer ' s request for 
discriminatory referral. 


: X 








X 












X 






Discrimination in member- 
ship or other rights in 
lahor organization. 


: X : 


X 


X : 


X : 


X . 


X 


: X : 


X 


: X 


: X 


: X 


X 


: X : 


Discrimination in ad- 
mission to educational 
institution. 






X : 






X 




(12) 


X(13) 






: X 


■.m : 


Discrimination in use or 
enjoyment of public 
accommodation. 


: X : 


X : 


X : 






X 




X • 


X 




: X 


: X 




Discrimination in sale, 
rental or privileges of 
public or publicly - 
assisted housing. {2h) 




X 


X 






X 




X 


X 




X 


X(25) 


'(14) 



Ik - 



TABLE D, (Cont'd) 


: Colo . 


.Conn. :Mass. 


.Mich. 


:1-Iinn. 


:K. J. 


H.Mex. 


N. Y.: 


3re. 


:Fa. 


R. 


I..: Wash. :Wisc. : 


Discriminatory inquiry of 
























employee or applicant 
for employment 


: X 


: :X(26) 


: X 


: X 


: X 


X 


. X : 


X 


: X : 


X 


: X : : 


applicant for admis- 
sion to educational 
institution 




: : X 




















applicant for pulalic or 
putlicly-assisted 
housing (2^) 




: : X 










X : 








:X(25): : 


Advertising evidencing 
an intent to discrim- 
inate by 
























employer or employ- 
ment agency 


Y 




Y 

• A 


: X 


: X 


X 


X : 


X 


: X : 


X 


: X : : 




: X 


: X : 


: X 


: X 










: X : 


y 

A 










: X 












: X : 






owner or operator of 




X 






xC 27] 

A\^ 1 y 




X 


X 




X 




owner or operator of 
publicly-assisted 

























housing (2if) X X 



- 15 - 



TABIE D, (Cont'd) 


:Colo. 


: Conn . 


Mass. 


:Mich. 


: Minn. 


: W. J. 


:W. Mex:N. Y. 


: Ore. 


: Pa. 


: R. I. 


:Wash. : Wise. : 


Discriminating against 
anyone for partici- 
pating in enforcement 
proceeding. 




X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Aiding, inciting or 
compelling others 
to discriminate. 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Attempting to violate 
the statute. 


: X 




(28) 


: X 


(23) 


(28) 


:(28) : 


(28) : 


X 


: X 




Obstructing compliance 
with law or orders 
issued by Commission 


: X 




X 


: X 


X 


X 


: : X 


X : 


X 


: X 


: X : : 



- l6 - 



NOTES TO APPEWDIX III 



■ 1. Any person aggrieved "or any associate or person on his behalf." 

2. The statute provides that "the Coimnission may receive and investigate 
complaints" but does not indicate who may be a complainant. 

3. The Attorney-General is authorized to initiate complaints in employ- 
ment cases but not in public accommodations cases. 

h. The Attorney-General is authorized to initiate complaints in employ- 
ment, public accommodations and publicly-assisted housing cases but not in 
education cases. 

5. Com.plaint may be made by "an organization chartered for the purpose 
of combating discrimination or racism, or of safeguarding civil liberties, or 
of promoting full, free, or equal employment opportunities." 

6. If the Commission is unable to eliminate an unfair employment practice, 
it notifies the governor, who appoints a board of review, which has power to 
issue an order enforceable in the courts. 

7- The statute provides that "an order of the Commissioner may be 
enforced by proceedings in the County Court...." but does not indicate who is 
to institute the proceedings. 

8. The statute provides: "The complainant, the Attorney-General or the 
Commission may secure enforcement of the order of the Commission...." 

9. The statute provides: "Any person aggrieved by non-compliance with 
the order shall be entitled to have the same enforced specifically by suit in 
equity. " 

10. Numeral linder each state indicates minimiam number of employees 
necessary for application of law. 

11. Educational institutions are included in the definition of public 
accommodations . 

12. Discrimination in educational institutions is banned by the New York 
Education Law, which is enforced by the Commissioner of Education and the 
Board of Regents under a procedure similar to that foll0w*©4 by the state's 
Commission Against Discrimination. Institutions of higher learning and 
business and trade schools are covered by this law. 

13. Applies only to vocational, professional, and trade schools. 

14. Wisconsin's statute is basically a fair employment practices law but 
it also prohibits discrimination "in the fields of housing, recreation, 
education, health, and social welfare." It is not clear whether this prohibition 
is enforceable. 



- 17 - 



15- The list of places covei-ed mider this term varies from state to state. 

16. "Public housing projects and all other forms of puhlicly-assisted 
housing" are included in the definition of public accommodations. 

17. Limited to land condemned and assembled by a state agency. 

18. Applies to multiple dwellings containing three or more apartments 
and housing projects containing ten or more homes. 

19. Applies to all such housing. 

20. Applies to multiple dwellings containing five or more apartments and 
housing projects containing six or more homes. 

21. The chart shows only acts specifically prohibited by the various 
statutes. In other cases, the statutes may effectively prohibit specific con- 
duct by the necessary interpretation of their terms. 

22. In all cases, the conduct is prohibited if committed on the basis of 
"race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry" or an equivalent formiila. 
All the laws contain provisions either permitting religious bodies to prefer 
their coreligionists or exem,pting them altogether. 

23. Discrimination is banned, but only "if the individual is the best 
able and most competent to perform the services required." 

2^. For scope of application to public and publicly assisted hotising, see 
Table C. 

25 • Applies also to discrimination by lending institutions in financing 
publicly assisted housing and to discriminatory inquiries in connection there- 
with. 

26. Includes prohibition of discriminatory inquiries in connection with 
application for employee's surety bond. 

27. Discriminatory questions by educational institutions are also covered 
since such institutions are included in the definition of public accommodations. 

28. Attempts to aid, incite or compel others to violate the statute are 
banned but there is no specific prohibition of attempts to violate the statute 
itself. 



- 18 - 



APPEIMDIX IV 
FORMAL CCMFIAIIOTS RECEIVED BY 
AGENCIES WITH EI^IFOKCEMENT FO^JERS (l) 

State (2) Number of Formal 195^ Popiilation Qomplaints Per 100,000 

Complaints in Twelve- of popuJ.ation 
Month Period 



Connecticut 


220 


2, 232, 000 


9.86 


Massachusetts 


293 


4,812,000 


6.09 


Michigan 




7,516,000 


3.26 


Minnesota 


29 (3) 


3,241,000 


0.89 (3) 


New Jersey- 


152 


5,403,000 


2.81 


New Mexico 


10 


815,000 


1.23 


New York 


804 


16,195,000 ■ 


4.96 


Oregon 


22 


1,718,000 


1.28 


Pennsylvania 


ikh 


10,964,000 


1.31 


Rhode Island 


31 


828,000 


3.74 


Washington 


53 (4) 


2, 667,000 


1.99 (4) 


Total 


2003 


56,391,000 


3.55 



(1) In comparing the number of complaints filed in the various states, it 
must be remembered that some agencies have much broader responsibility 
than others. See Appendix III, Table C. 

(2) Colorado and Wisconsin are not included because the agencies in those 
states have not had effective enforcement powers for a full twelve- 
month period. 

(3) The Minnesota figure does not include complaints arising in 
Minneapolis and St. Paul, due to an arrangement between the Minnesota 
Cocimission and the mundjcixaal fair employment agencies in those two 
cities, which have continued to operate after enactment of the state 
law. 

(4) Washington's complaint figure is for the calendar year of 1956. It 
received 74 complaints between January 1 and November 25, 1957. The 
increase apparently reflects the fact that its powers have enlarged 
during 1957* 



- 19 - 



state 



APPENDIX V 
AGENCY BUDGETS (l) 
1956 Population Current 12 -mo nth Budget Per Capita Expenditure 



Colorado 


1,612,000 




41,224 


$ .0255 


Connecticut 


2,232,000 




90,000 . 


.0403 


Massachusetts 


4,812,000 




87,138 


.0181 


Michigan 


7,516,000 




137,928 


.0184 


Minnesota 


3,241,000 




31,000 (2) 


.0096 


New Jersey 


5,403,000 




114,093 


.0211 


New Mexico 


815,000 




2,000 


.0025 


New York 


16,195,000 




636,668 


.0393 


Oregon 


1,718,000 




20,000 


.0116 


Pennsylvania 


10,964,000 




112, 500 


.0103 


nnoQe j.sxanu. 


OdO, 000 




37,495 


.0453 


Washington 


2,667,000 




39,700 


.0149 


Wisconsin 


3,764,000 




16,480 


.0044 


Total 


61,767,000 


$1,366,226 


.0221 


Indiana (3) 


4,413,000 


$ 


30,000 


.0068 


Kansas 


2,103,000 




15,000 


.0071 


Total 


6,516,000 


$ 


45,000 


.0069 



(1) In comparing the budgets and the per capita expenditures of the various 
states, it must be remembered that some agencies have much broader 
responsibility than others. See Appendix III, Table C. 

(2) See note 3 to Appendix for explanation of Minnesota's small case load. 

(3) Indiana and Kansas commissions have no enforcement powers. 



- 20 - 



APPENDIX VI 



PROPORTION OF NEGRO, OTHER NON-WHITE, 
AND JEWISH POPULATION 





Total Pop. 


Negro 




Other Non' 


-Vftiite 


Jewish 






1950 


Pop. 


■ 1" , 


Pop. 


f 


Pop. 






1 QOc; nAo 
-•-,0^5,00^ 


20,177 


1.52 


8,259 


0.62 


22, 500 


1.70 






53,472 


2.66 


1,479 


0.07 


97, 500 


4.86 


iYiaB OO.CQUS QIjIj S 




73,171 


1.56 


5,84o 


0.12 


276,700 


5.90 


Micnigan 


oo71,7Db 


442,290 


6.94 


11,645 


0.18 


87,800 


1.38 




<i, 902,403 


l4, 022 


0.47 


14, 764 


0.50 


43,500 


1.46 






310, 505 


b.p9 


5,179 


0.11 


279, 4oo 


5.78 


New Mexico 


681,187 


8,4o8 


1.23 


42,568 


6.25 


1,200 


0.18 


iMSw XOPK 




9x0,191 


0.19 


39,906 


0.27 


2,391,600 


16.13 


Oregon 


1,521,341 


11, 529 


0.76 


12,684 


0.83 


12,000 


0.79 


Pennsylvania 


10,498,012 


638,485 


6.08 


5,679 


0.05 


365,600 


3.48 


Rhode Island 


791,896 


13,903 


1.75 


978 


0.12 


29,000 


3.66 


wasnxngxon 


370,903 


30,591 


1.29 


31,776 


1.34 


19, 500 


0.82 


Wisconsin 


3,434,575 


28,182 


0.82 


13,703 


o.4o 


42,000 


1.22 








4. 50 




0.35 


3,660,300 


6.51 


Indiana 


3,934,224 


174,168 


4.43 


1,544 


0..;04 


39,500 


0.75 


Kansas 


1,905,299 


73,158 


3.84 


3,180 


0.17 


8, 500 


0.45 


Total 


5,839,523 


247,326 


4.24 


4,724 


0.08 


38,000 


0.65 



Total U. S. 150,697,361 15,042,286 713,047 5,000,000 

<fo of Total U.S. 

in 13 States 37-39 17-09 27-27 73.37 

i of Total U.S. 

in 2 States 3-88 1.64 0.66 0.76 



(1) Jewish population figures are estinates, since the census contains no 
questions on religion. The figures in the table are the most widely- 
accepted estimates. 

(2) Indiana and Kansas coinmissions do not have enforcement powers. 



- 21 -